On Thu, 29 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote:
on 5/29/2003 6:27 PM Dean Anderson wrote:
Anyway, with Type 1 and Type 2 spam, this is unnecessary, since they
tell you how to contact them in the message.
There is still a reason to have verifiable identities for commercial spam,
which is protection against joe-jobs. You want to have proof that the
beneficiary is really the spammer and not just a victim, or that the
spammer is really the spammer regardless of who he is spamming for. While
there are ways of doing this after the fact as you said, having a
verifiable sender identity makes it a lot simpler.
Yes, and for those folks who have asserted that I don't understand the
infrastructure cost for my stamp based proposal, may I suggest they are
ignoring the very high cost of obtaining a warrant for each piece of the
electronic trail SPAM follows.
Having built in source identification will at least allow for aggregation
of data requests in warrants for access to one ISP for many documented
infractions. It also won't be necessary to force folks to retain logs for
some period of time or force open relays to have logs or deal with the
issues where the open relay is offshore.